1998 INSC 0004
                                                          Lajo

                                                           Vs

                                               Sukhdev Singh & Ors.

                                        (G. T. Nanavati, S. S.M.Quadri JJ)

                                                      06.01.1998

                                                    JUDGEMENT

NANAVATI, J.

1.The widow of Lal Chand, who was killed in the incident which took place on 28.6.1985 and in
respect of which six accused including respondent Nos.1 to 5 were tried in the Court of Additional
Session Judge, Kurukshetra in sessions case No.5/1 Add of 1986/Session Trial Nos.1 to 5 have been
acquitted by the High Court.

2.Lal Chand deceased and his brother Ram Sarup claimed to be in possession of Khasra
No.24/21.The prosecution case was that on 28.6.1985 at about 5.00 p.m.while Lal Chand and his
brother Ram Sarup and his wife P.W.6 Ishra were in the field, Sukhdev Singh, respondent No.1
along with other accused came there and started ploughing the land. When Lal Chand tried to
persuade them not to plough the land, Sukhdev Singh fired a shot from his double barrel gun and
caused injuries to Lal Chand. Thereafter other accused assaulted Ram Sarup, Ishro and others who
came to their recue and caused injuries to them also. The trial court relying upon the evidence of
P.W.4 Ram Sarup, P.W.6, Ishro, and P.W.7 Nirmal Singh convicted Sukhdev Singh for the offence
of murder and respondent Nos.2 to 5 for the offence or murder and respondent No.5 Sukhwinder
Kaur was also convicted under Section 325 IPC.

3.All the convicted accused challenged their conviction before the Punjab & Haryana High
Court.The High Court on reapplication of the evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution
has failed to establish that Lal Chand and his son were put into possession of the field and that they
were, in fact, in possession of the same on the date of the incident. The High Court also found that
the eye witnesses had not given a correct account for the version as they had failed to explain the
injuries which were found on the acused. The accused Harvinder Singh had as many as a 5 injuries
on his person and accused Ajit Singh had a fracture of his arm. The High Court also found that the
defence version that Sukhdev Singh was possession and that on the fateful day when he was
ploughing the land, Lal Chand, Ram Sarup, Ishro and Rul Ra, had gone to their field with ghandasis
and attacked Harvinder Singh and thereupon accused Sukhdev Singh had fired a shot from his
double barrel gun in exercise of right of private defense was more acceptable.

4.Having gone through the evidence and judgments of both the courts, we find that the view taken
by the High Court appears to be quite reasonable except the oral version of the four prosecution
witnesses namely Ram Sarup, Ishro Gurmukh Singh and Nirmal Singh there was no other evidence
to show that lal Chand and his son were in possession of the field. The Entries produced from the
revenue records clearly show that the field was in procession of accused Harvinder Singh. The
evidence also discloses that accused Harvinder Singh and Ajit were examined by Dr.T.L.Gilhotra,
D.W.1, on 2.7.85 and had found injuries on their person. He has also stated that those injuries were
of 3 to 4 days duration. Those injuries do not appear to be self inflicted. Therefore the High Court
was right in holding that the prosecution witnesses had failed to explain the injuries caused to the
accused The High Court has also pointed out that P.W.7 Nirmal Singh was on inimical terms with
the accused as proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. were initiated against him by the accused. The
relations of Ram, Sarup, (P.W.4) and Ishro, (P.W.6) were also inimical with the accused.If in these
circumstances the High Court did not think if fit to place reliance on the prosecution witnesses it
cannot be said that the view taken by the High Court is unreasonable. We therefore dismiss these
appeals. The bail bonds are bonds are ordered to be cancelled.